Michael Osnard, Rebecca R Meredith, Kara Grace Leventhal, Sonia P Dalal, Timothy M Niessen, Gigi Liu, Rebecca Engels, Cora Lehet, Michael R Cox, Ashley Haas, Marissa Proffen, Maggie Chan, Benjamin E Bodnar
{"title":"Development of a novel rapid response event review process for quality improvement.","authors":"Michael Osnard, Rebecca R Meredith, Kara Grace Leventhal, Sonia P Dalal, Timothy M Niessen, Gigi Liu, Rebecca Engels, Cora Lehet, Michael R Cox, Ashley Haas, Marissa Proffen, Maggie Chan, Benjamin E Bodnar","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Rapid response team (RRT) and code activation events occur relatively commonly in inpatient settings. RRT systems have been the subject of a significant amount of analysis, although this has been largely focused on the impact of RRT system implementation and RRT events on patient outcomes. There is reason to believe that the structured assessment of RRT and code events may be an effective way to identify opportunities for system improvement, although no standardised approach to event analysis is widely accepted. We developed and refined a protocolised system of RRT and code event review, focused on sustainable, timely and high value event analysis meant to inform ongoing improvement activities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A group of clinicians with expertise in process and quality improvement created a protocolised analytic plan for rapid response event review, piloted and then iteratively optimised a systematic process which was applied to all subsequent cases to be reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Hospitalist reviewers were recruited and trained in a methodical approach. Each reviewer performed a chart review to summarise RRT events, and collect specific variables for each case (coding). Coding was then reviewed for concordance, at monthly interdisciplinary group meetings and 'Action Items' were identified and considered for implementation. In any 12-month period starting in 2021, approximately 12-15 distinct cases per month were reviewed and coded, offering ample opportunities to identify trends and patterns.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We have developed an innovative process for ongoing review of RRT-Code events. The review process is easy to implement and has allowed for the timely identification of high value improvement opportunities.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11168121/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002664","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Rapid response team (RRT) and code activation events occur relatively commonly in inpatient settings. RRT systems have been the subject of a significant amount of analysis, although this has been largely focused on the impact of RRT system implementation and RRT events on patient outcomes. There is reason to believe that the structured assessment of RRT and code events may be an effective way to identify opportunities for system improvement, although no standardised approach to event analysis is widely accepted. We developed and refined a protocolised system of RRT and code event review, focused on sustainable, timely and high value event analysis meant to inform ongoing improvement activities.
Methods: A group of clinicians with expertise in process and quality improvement created a protocolised analytic plan for rapid response event review, piloted and then iteratively optimised a systematic process which was applied to all subsequent cases to be reviewed.
Results: Hospitalist reviewers were recruited and trained in a methodical approach. Each reviewer performed a chart review to summarise RRT events, and collect specific variables for each case (coding). Coding was then reviewed for concordance, at monthly interdisciplinary group meetings and 'Action Items' were identified and considered for implementation. In any 12-month period starting in 2021, approximately 12-15 distinct cases per month were reviewed and coded, offering ample opportunities to identify trends and patterns.
Conclusion: We have developed an innovative process for ongoing review of RRT-Code events. The review process is easy to implement and has allowed for the timely identification of high value improvement opportunities.